Libertarians

[Reccesoldier]

So what was all that yelling about at the battle school?

That was for those people who practise that other type of motivation... Loudership.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Isn't that the definition of leadership?

Nope.  The essence of libertarianism is that collective action should be informed and consensual.  Every degree of "or else" is a degree of movement away from that.  I've lost track of the number of otherwise reasonable, rational, and intelligent people whose paths have crossed mine who in a moment of frustration and weakness have basically told me "Shut the f* up and pay/provide/do; you're outvoted" because the easiest path to realization of their brilliant plan is the power of government.  That's the ugly baseline of something that is not leadership.  Respect for the autonomy of the person means having to respect ornery, cranky, selfish, lazy, isolationist people - tolerance in its true meaning.

 

[a_majoor]

So what was all that yelling about at the battle school?
Incredible that on a leadership course they would spend so much time not leading.

No, the yelling is Command and motivation, since it is difficult to get people to follow the commanders intent (willingly or otherwise) in a hail of gunfire.

 

[Reccesoldier]

>Isn't that the definition of leadership?

Nope.  The essence of libertarianism is that collective action should be informed and consensual.  Every degree of "or else" is a degree of movement away from that.  I've lost track of the number of otherwise reasonable, rational, and intelligent people whose paths have crossed mine who in a moment of frustration and weakness have basically told me "Shut the f* up and pay/provide/do; you're outvoted" because the easiest path to realization of their brilliant plan is the power of government.  That's the ugly baseline of something that is not leadership.  Respect for the autonomy of the person means having to respect ornery, cranky, selfish, lazy, isolationist people - tolerance in its true meaning.

Brad, how many people do you think are informed enough to make rational consentual choices?  Think about it...  In a society where only 65+/- % bother to vote in free and fair elections and even less of them actualy bother to make their choice a non-partisan one where do you think our society would end up without at least a modicum of "this is the way it is going to be"?

 

[edgar]

>Isn't that the definition of leadership?

Nope.  The essence of libertarianism is that collective action should be informed and consensual.  Every degree of "or else" is a degree of movement away from that.  I've lost track of the number of otherwise reasonable, rational, and intelligent people whose paths have crossed mine who in a moment of frustration and weakness have basically told me "Shut the f* up and pay/provide/do; you're outvoted" because the easiest path to realization of their brilliant plan is the power of government.  That's the ugly baseline of something that is not leadership.  Respect for the autonomy of the person means having to respect ornery, cranky, selfish, lazy, isolationist people - tolerance in its true meaning.

So your slogan then is "if it's not libertarian, it's not leadership". Nor is it oatmeal.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Libertarians in my experience are a bunch of selfish isolationists. After Communism and Nazism it is one of the more morally disgusting political parties in existence. Luckily though thus far in history no nation has been unintelligent enough to support a Libertarian government (with the exception of Augusta Pinochet).

 

[a_majoor]

Brad, how many people do you think are informed enough to make rational consentual choices?  Think about it...  In a society where only 65+/- % bother to vote in free and fair elections and even less of them actualy bother to make their choice a non-partisan one where do you think our society would end up without at least a modicum of "this is the way it is going to be"?

Perhaps the best predictor is the market. Wherever the market is free and efficient, consumers participate fully and enthusiastically, choice is high and prices are generally low. Think about that whenever you go out to buy groceries.

The political system is (deliberately) an inefficient market. Choices are limited, information about the market and "products" is limited and the consumer (voter) can only shop (vote) at irregular intervals, usually measured in years. Political parties control the process to the extent they can get away with, and a permanent bureaucracy also works to limit voter power while it enhances its own. Taxpayers and voters do use the available information to make rational choices whenever and however they can, although it can take the form of tax evasion, capital mobility and labour mobility. The ones with the most resources have the most incentive to move away from high tax and high regulatory environments, taking their investment power with them. (The wealthy investor acting rationally may not be overtly Libertarian, and I would suspect many such people would never claim to adhere to the Libertarian philosophy even as they act upon it).

"This is the way its going to be" has a place, particularly in emergency situations, however short of war or natural disaster there is very little reason for government to invoke these sorts of powers. Of course, by claiming regulatory failure and unintended consequences of government regulation are "market failures", they create their own permanent emergencies and use these excuses to extend government powers.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Brad, how many people do you think are informed enough to make rational consentual choices?

I think large numbers of people lack one or more of intelligence, education, common sense; or, even granted they have all of those, they lack the willpower to overcome their emotional and biological urges sufficiently to make rational consensual choices consistently.  As a result, large numbers of people make poor decisions.

But none of that is a satisfactory reason for any other person or people to assume more than a very bare minimum of power to direct their lives.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>So your slogan then is "if it's not libertarian, it's not leadership". Nor is it oatmeal.

That's your shoe, not mine.  Don't presume to speak for me.

 

[TCBF]

Libertarians in my experience are a bunch of selfish isolationists. After Communism and Nazism it is one of the more morally disgusting political parties in existence. Luckily though thus far in history no nation has been unintelligent enough to support a Libertarian government (with the exception of Augusta Pinochet).

- You sound confused.  Pinochet a Libertarian?  I doubt it, though a lot of Libertarians no doubt 'disapeared' under his watch.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Libertarians in my experience are a bunch of selfish isolationists. After Communism and Nazism it is one of the more morally disgusting political parties in existence.

Perhaps you shouldn't speak from such a wealth of ignorance.  As to how it is morally disgusting, please explain why a person minding his own business disgusts you and how you came to lump that in with political philosophies on the end of the spectrum occupied by people who are obsessed with controlling others.  Ponder the number of other political philosophies which lie between the people minding their own business and the people minding other people's business to the extent of democide.  Where on that morally disgusting spectrum do you sit?

As I say, the guy who spends his days obsessively counting his spare change in his attic bothers me a lot less than the people who just need the right cause to rationalize their stupidity.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

>Brad, how many people do you think are informed enough to make rational consentual choices?

I think large numbers of people lack one or more of intelligence, education, common sense; or, even granted they have all of those, they lack the willpower to overcome their emotional and biological urges sufficiently to make rational consensual choices consistently.  As a result, large numbers of people make poor decisions.

And one could only presume that that individuals would make better* choices if they were not insulated from the consequences of their actions (i.e., settlement in the Mississippi River Basin).

-----------
*People generally act rationally: we have to be aware of what incentives exist and what any given individual's motivations are.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

- You sound confused.  Pinochet a Libertarian?  I doubt it, though a lot of Libertarians no doubt 'disapeared' under his watch.

FA is right OTL: I suspect he's trying classify Pinochet as a Libertarian because of his free market economic policies (only).  Evidently the entire concept of civics is completely lost on the (original) poster.

 

[FrenchAffair]

- You sound confused.  Pinochet a Libertarian?  I doubt it, though a lot of Libertarians no doubt 'disapeared' under his watch.

Milton Friedman was at his time the leading economic libertarian in the world. He met with and approved of the Chicago Boys (a group of Chilean economists) who at the behest of Augusto Pinochet worked to create a free market economy and decentralize economic and ultimately political power, the same goals of Libertarians. Friedman even met with Pinochet and became friends with him, approving of his government and the direction it was going. As it was at the time the closest thing to a Libertarian society. And we all know how that went.

Another, and more realistic example of “Libertarian” policies at practice would be modern Somalia. With the “federal” government having limited if any power and only providing foreign affairs and limited military defense the structure of Somalia government today is exactly what Libertarians strive to create. Civil protection is provided by private companies (warlords) and anything else any individual wants if they can afford it they can get, and those who can’t afford it simply die off. Exactly the principles Libertarians wish to instate in what ever society they exist in.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yes, beating in the heart of every libertarian is the bloodlust of a Somali warlord.  Are you legally mentally competent?

 

[FrenchAffair]

>Libertarians in my experience are a bunch of selfish isolationists. After Communism and Nazism it is one of the more morally disgusting political parties in existence.

Perhaps you shouldn't speak from such a wealth of ignorance.  As to how it is morally disgusting, please explain why a person minding his own business disgusts you and how you came to lump that in with political philosophies on the end of the spectrum occupied by people who are obsessed with controlling others.  Ponder the number of other political philosophies which lie between the people minding their own business and the people minding other people's business to the extent of democide.  Where on that morally disgusting spectrum do you sit?

As I say, the guy who spends his days obsessively counting his spare change in his attic bothers me a lot less than the people who just need the right cause to rationalize their stupidity.

My position on Libertarians is far from one created from ignorance. Libertarians are such an obscure and irrelevant political entity, the very fact that I know what a Libertarian is demonstrates that I am not ignorant on the philosophy.

It is morally disgusting because it advocates “survival of the fittest”. There would be no welfare, there would be no public health care, there would be no public education…. There would be no government programs at all to benefit anyone in society. The basis of Libertarism is if you can’t afford it you don’t deserve it. They believe in the “god” of the “infallible” market force. To them, those who don’t make money don’t because they do not deserve it (not smart enough, don’t work hard enough…. Ect) and therefore deserve to suffer the consequences of that.

The poor would get poorer, the rich would get richer and the middle class would either succeed or fail in till we are left with a society of the rich elite who are capable of educating and sustaining themselves, and the poor who are forced in to “slavery” simply to survive.

There would be no minimum wage, there would be no “workers rights”, under Libertarians it would be completely legal to operate Asian style sweatshops in Canada because according to them it is the only way to make our markets “competitive” and if individuals did not like the conditions of these sweatshops they would quit.

Public education would be eliminated, families unable to pay for education would not be able to send their children to school. Those families of poorer means would only be able to send there children to schools of lower quality…. In end the Rich would get better education where the poor would be lucky if they got any at all (Like how it was back in 14th century England).

Libertarians don’t believe that we should have a military for anything other than our own defense. Our military would be severally under funded (since Libertarians don’t believe in the right to tax citizens there would be little if any funds for our armed forces). We would no longer participate or contribute to humanitarian missions or peacekeeping. There would be no more foreign aid to help people around the world, there would be no more UN missions to help and protect refugees. The problems of other people around the world would no longer be a concern or issue to Canadians under a Libertarian government.

At home, there would be no more restrictions on trade of any kind. Our borders would be completely open, no more taxes on foreign goods, no more tariffs. In short Canadian industrie would either have to lower it’s standards to meet that of places like south east Asia to remain competitive (paying workers 50 cents an hour in despicable conditions) or see 100% of these sectors move to 3rd world countries.

Roads, Police, Fire….. all these services would become private. Private corporations would own roads, and you could have to pay them to use them. So simply driving to work, you would have to map out a specific path and only use those roadways you have paid to use. You would have to pay for private corporations to police and protect your nebigourhoods, private companies to protect your house against fires…

Libertarians believe that corporations do everything better than the government, and thus everything the government does for us today, would have to be done by private corporations.

Libertarians are morally disgusting because I believe that a society can best be judged by how we treat our poorest, worst off citizens (like a great man once said) and under a Libertarian government our poor would be left in the street to die.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Yes, beating in the heart of every libertarian is the bloodlust of a Somali warlord.  Are you legally mentally competent?

Somalia is the perfect example of the ultimate evolution of a state running on Libertarian principles. There is limited if any federal government, Private enterprise is free to do what ever they want with no regulations and individuals are free to do what they want, when they want with little if any restrictions. 

 

[a_majoor]

Perhaps a little more reading and a little less trolling is in order here. Somalia is a failed state, and if it represents anything at all it is Anarchy.

In terms of what a true Libertarian society would look like; there would not be welfare, but neither would there be any restrictions on your offering charity to those less fortunate than yourself. While you object to privatization of the police, fire department etc. it should be noted that a: these are relatively modern constructs, and; b: private security firms and volunteer fire departments far outnumber "public" ones. Obviously there is a market mechanism to provide these services to those with the inclination to either buy them or provide voluntary service.

The rest of your objections (if I can use that term) are the typical track of calling regulatory failure "market failure" as justification to impose more government intrusion into private spheres. Poor children in public schools get whatever the State decides to provide, which in my experience (from dealing with recruits who have graduated from such schools) isn't much. The evidence of private industry and free trade outperforming government institutions is overwhelming, a current event is Canadian farmers attempting to free themselves from the Canadian wheat board, as evidence mounts the board sells Canadian wheat at below market prices, lowering the return of farmers who are forced to sell through the board (reducing their standards of living, taxable income etc.). Wal-Mart saves the poor millions of dollars and provides them greater consumer choice, and unlike the former Soviet Union, our groceries are not rationed, but like the former USSR, our health care is.

I believe I have spent enough valuable time on this tangent, and don't intend to "feed the trolls" any further. The facts are there for you and everyone else to examine and draw conclusions from. Don't be surprised when people come down on you for pulling erroneous conclusions out of the air.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Perhaps a little more reading and a little less trolling is in order here.

+1

Even the Anarcho-Capitalists argue in favour of a (mutually-agreed) legal code ... the Minarchist school of libertarianism supports a small level of government, functioning by way of a minimal level of taxation, that is responsible for an effective military, police and judicial system: Somalia has none of these ... Pinochet was a tyrant who had no respect for individual liberty.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Perhaps a little more reading and a little less trolling is in order here. Somalia is a failed state, and if it represents anything at all it is Anarchy

The successful implication of Libertarian philosophy upon a society would result in effective “anarchy”. There would be little distinction between Anarchy and a full on Libertarian society beyond the few basic laws maintained (if possible) by a Libertarian government.

Anarchy and Libertarism are two shades of the same color, just like Communism and Fascism.

In terms of what a true Libertarian society would look like; there would not be welfare, but neither would there be any restrictions on your offering charity to those less fortunate than yourself.

Show me a time in history when there have been actual laws or restrictions against giving to charity?

I doubt there has ever been such laws, but that has never prevented mass poverty. Today as it stands the world rich could easily end world starvation and vastly improve the conditions of hundreds of millions of the world poor. But they don’t. Why would it be any different in a Libertarian society?

Charity only goes so far, and Charitable originations only have resources and political abilities that extend so far. No origination is as effective and efficient in providing needed aid and bettering the social and economic conditions of our citizens than the government. Stopping them from doing that is morally reprehensible.

While you object to privatization of the police, fire department etc. it should be noted that a: these are relatively modern constructs

And society evolved to create such establishments, what benefits is there in reverting to practices that our society has seen fit to eliminate?

b: private security firms and volunteer fire departments far outnumber "public" ones.

Quality over quantity. Public departments provide equal coverage to all people. Look what happened when private fire departments were established in 17th century England. When you paid a fire department they would put a plaque up on your house indicating that you were provided coverage by a certain company. If your house was on fire and another company responded but you did not pay them, they would let your house burn.

To say that private corporations, motivated by profit, are the best originations to protect our cities and home from fire is illogical. If you don’t pay them, there is no motive for them to protect your house. The rich would be well covered, where the poor would be lucky if they even showed up to put the fire out.

As for private security, they do nothing other than supplement public institutions. There is no situation in the western world where private institutions take over the rolls of investigation and prosecution of crimes.

Poor children in public schools get whatever the State decides to provide, which in my experience (from dealing with recruits who have graduated from such schools) isn't much.

Public education is what you make of it. We are taught the exact same things in public school as private schools.

The fundamental issue here is that Libertarians believe only those who can afford it deserve education, and since children are depended on their parents really Libertarians believe that only those born into money deserve education, poor parents would be unable to educate their children (sins of the father).

That is a barbaric, the cornerstone of developed society is free and universal access to education. It is morally despicable that any individual in our society would seek to deny those of lesser means their fundamental right to education.

The evidence of private industry and free trade outperforming government institutions is overwhelming

The free market has it’s place, but it’s freedoms must be balanced with the wellbeing and needs of society. Libertarians take a free market to the extreme and advocate that it is the magical cure for everything. Unfortunately for them, the market force is not the answer for everything.

Wal-Mart saves the poor millions of dollars and provides them greater consumer choice

Well at the same time providing workers with no benefits, as minimal pay as possible and absolutely no rights as workers (if a store unionizes, they shut the store down).

Tell me, what do you think Wal-Mart would pay it’s employees if the government didn’t set a minimum wage as Libertarians would advoicate?

The facts are there

I think the only fact that is ultimately relevant is the few thousand votes nationally the Libertarian party gets at best and the fact that no moral and educated society will ever embrace libertarian principles.

Somalia has none of these

They did for many years, but like I said. Somalia today is the ultimate evolution of a Libertarian society. That small, minimally funded government was disregarded as soon as the private corporations (in this case Somalia) gained more power than the government did. Any libertarian society would go the same way, as corporations gained more and more power fueled by their need for more and more money ultimately the government would only stand in their way and they would disregard it and eliminate it.